From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/28] net/virtio: use eal I/O device memory
 read/write API
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:12:56 +0800
Message-ID: <20161216021256.GM18991@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1481680558-4003-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <1481680558-4003-27-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20161214030223.GH18991@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20161215054533.GA10211@santosh-Latitude-E5530-non-vPro>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, thomas.monjalon@6wind.com,
 bruce.richardson@intel.com, jianbo.liu@linaro.org,
 viktorin@rehivetech.com, Huawei Xie <huawei.xie@intel.com>
To: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACF9376D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 03:11:00 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161215054533.GA10211@santosh-Latitude-E5530-non-vPro>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 09:45:34PM -0800, Santosh Shukla wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:02:23AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:25:56AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > >   * Following macros are derived from linux/pci_regs.h, however,
> > >   * we can't simply include that header here, as there is no such
> > > @@ -320,37 +322,37 @@ static const struct virtio_pci_ops legacy_ops = {
> > >  static inline uint8_t
> > >  io_read8(uint8_t *addr)
> > >  {
> > > -	return *(volatile uint8_t *)addr;
> > > +	return rte_readb(addr);
> > >  }
> > 
> > Oh, one more comments: why not replacing io_read8 with rte_readb(),
> > and do similar for others? Then we don't have to define those wrappers.
> > 
> > I think you can also do something similar for other patches?
> 
> Make sense for the virtio-pci case where API name io_read/write as good as
> rte_read/write.

Yes, and I think there are few others like this in your example.

> However, IMO for other drivers for example ADF_CSR_RD/WR
> improves code readability compared to plain rte_read/write.

Sure, for such case, we should not replace the macro.

	--yliu